Is a Hindu marriage with an under-18 bride void?

No. Under Section 5(iii) read with Section 18 HMA, breach of age is punishable but the marriage remains valid and recognisable in law.

Can a minor girl be kept in a remand home against her will?

No. There is no authority to confine a willing minor (above ~15) in a protective home; her wishes must be ascertained before custody orders.

Was kidnapping made out in such elopement marriages?

No. Where the girl acted of her own will and accompanied the man by choice, essential ingredients of kidnapping were not satisfied.

What powers did the Court rely on?

The High Court used its wide supervisory powers under Articles 226 and 227, subject to self-imposed limits.

What did the case finally decide?

Marriage valid; girl not to be detained; FIR not pursued as complainant withdrew and facts showed voluntary marriage.

Law Easy

31 October, 2025

151

Ravi Kumar v. The State — Validity of under-age marriage, custody of minor & habeas corpus | The Law Easy

Ravi Kumar v. The State

124 (2005) DLT 1 • Delhi High Court • Marriage Age, Custody & Habeas Corpus

```

Delhi High Court 2005 124 (2005) DLT 1 Family • Constitutional ~7 min read

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: child marriage validity; remand home custody; habeas corpus SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Section 5(iii) HMA; Section 18 HMA; kidnapping ingredients; Articles 226/227

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India PUBLISH_DATE: 31 Oct 2025 Slug: ravi-kumar-v-the-state

```

Quick Summary

The Delhi High Court held that a Hindu marriage where the girl is above 15 but below 18 is valid though punishable under Section 18 of the HMA for age breach. A willing minor girl cannot be detained in a remand/protective home against her wishes. Here, the couple married voluntarily; kidnapping was not made out; habeas corpus was allowed.

```

Issues

What is the legal status of a marriage where statutory age is not met?
Is such a marriage void ab initio because one spouse is a minor?
Can a willing minor girl (above the age of discretion) be kept in protective custody against her will?

Rules

Section 5(iii) HMA, 1955: Prescribes minimum marriageable age; breach invites penalty under Section 18 but the marriage remains valid and enforceable.

No detention of willing minors: Law does not authorise keeping a willing minor (even around 15) in a protective home; her wishes must be ascertained before deciding custody. Articles 226/227 give wide powers to ensure liberty and justice.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline visual for Ravi Kumar v. The State

Parties: Ravi Kumar (~28), vegetable seller; Shikha Sharma (~16y 8m), studied up to 8th class.

Marriage: 8 Dec 2004 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi. Certificate mentioned 10 Apr 1986; actual DOB 10 Apr 1988.

After marriage: Couple rented a room. Sister lodged “missing” report; Ravi arrested for kidnapping; Shikha sent to Nari Niketan as she refused to go to parents.

Statements: Shikha confirmed she voluntarily called and married Ravi. Sister later admitted FIR was due to misapprehension and sought quashing.

Petition: Habeas corpus was moved to release Shikha from Nari Niketan/Nirmal Chhaya.

Arguments

Petitioner

Marriage was voluntary; Shikha is above 15—marriage valid though punishable for age breach.
No legal basis to confine her in a remand home against her will.
Kidnapping ingredients absent as she went by choice.

State/Complainant

Initial concern of inducement/enticing; age below statutory minimum.
Protective custody viewed as necessary; later, complainant withdrew objections.

Judgment

Marriage validity: Not void/illegal merely because the girl is under 18 but above 15; breach is punishable, not voiding.
Custody: Minor girl cannot be detained in a remand home against her wishes in such circumstances.
No kidnapping: Voluntary companionship by a girl of age of discretion defeats the allegation of kidnapping.
Relief: Habeas corpus succeeded; the couple’s decision to live together respected.

Ratio (Legal Principle)

Breach of age under Section 5(iii) HMA attracts penalty but does not invalidate the marriage. A willing minor above the age of discretion cannot be confined in a protective home; her autonomy must be heard.

Why It Matters

Clarifies effect of age breach on marriage validity under HMA.
Protects liberty of young women from unnecessary institutional confinement.
Outlines limits of kidnapping in consensual elopement cases.

Key Takeaways

Valid, not void: Age breach ≠ void marriage (penal consequence only).
Autonomy matters: No forced remand for a willing minor above ~15.
No kidnapping: Voluntary consent defeats essential ingredients.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “AGE ≠ VOID”

AGE breach → penalty, not nullity.
WILL of the girl counts for custody.
NO KIDNAP if she chose to go.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Effect of under-age marriage; legality of remand home custody; kidnapping in consensual elopement.

Rule: Section 5(iii) + 18 HMA (penalty, not void); no lawful detention of a willing minor; broad HC powers under Arts. 226/227.

Application: Girl above 15 acted voluntarily; marriage solemnised; detention unjustified; kidnapping elements absent.

Conclusion: Marriage valid; release ordered; FIR not pursued.

Glossary

Section 5(iii) HMA: Minimum age condition for Hindu marriage.
Section 18 HMA: Penalty provision for contravening Section 5 conditions.
Habeas Corpus: Writ to test unlawful detention and secure liberty.

FAQs

No. It is valid though punishable under Section 18 if age is below minimum; it is not void ab initio by that reason alone.

No. Her preference must be ascertained; there is no blanket power to confine her if she chooses otherwise.

Because the girl voluntarily accompanied the petitioner and initiated the marriage; essential elements of inducement/force were missing.

Articles 226 and 227 empower High Courts to protect liberty and supervise authorities, applied here with self-imposed restraint.

```

Comment

Nothing for now